Most Unpopular Opinions About Lindsey

[strandinthewind]

David -

I agree mostly with what you said, esp. about good and bad critics, etc. However, my point was, albeit poorly made, that I think the male critics were quick to judge her more harshly for a variety of reasons. I do not think LB got that same initial pre disposition for a bad review. I hope that made sense

As for pushing the envelope - there can be no question that LB loves to push it in a variety of ways, while La Nicks is not nearly as much so.

[David]

Originally Posted by madformac

He's not been "manic" as far as I know. You would have to ask David or ChiliD, those guys have seen far more of LB than I have. In '75 to '77 all his effort was seemingly put into the singing/playing as far as I know. '79 he was pretty wild at times but still focused. 1982 produced his most wild times I think but still the playing was amazing, strutting around and stuff is hardly manic, his guitar work was at it's most creative live I believe in '82.

No his most creative playing onstage was in 1980 (thanks to tightness, confidence & exhaustion). He was pretty wild & freakazoid then, too. I mean, it's hard to sing "What Makes You Think You're the One" without freaking out.

I would say for the last FM tour, he was just a little more cartoonish: it was like looking at all his earlier energy through a magnifying prism--it was both a little bigger & more distorted.

I'm just confused by why he did it. I guess it's just some kind of rebellion.

The answer to me is obvious: it's his current way of infusing some rock & roll attitude into the proceedings. Problem is, when the guy is 55 or 60 years old, is balding in front, has a shock of Art Garfunkel hair in back, & is surrounded onstage by backup players all smiling blankly & a zonked-out middle-aged woman, it looks pretty dorky to me. In the distant past it never looked idiotic because the whole FM band looked like rock stars.

I'd also add I believe he is far fitter now than he was in '82 so I don't understand the thinking there.

Nah. You're never in better shape at 55 than you are at 35 -- unless you were a hippopotamus at 35.

From what I understand (maybe a Stevie fan can add some info) she refused to be onstage during that song for whatever reasons, maybe it's the lyrical content or it's his antics I don't know personally.

She doesn't like the song. She said so somewhere ... She wouldn't even have to say so. All you have to do is listen to it & know immediately that this is not a song that Stevie Nicks is going to embrace.

When Stevie doesn't like a song, she goes backstage for a rest. It's tradition.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by madformac

. . . She could have sung on it I'm sure. She sings on ISA so whats the difference? Apart from Lindsey's little spotlight stint with Big Love or Go Insane she would be expected to stay onstage really.

I think she offered to sing on Big Love and in fact did sing on it to IMO wild success on the Letterman Dance era appearance. To me, her spot on high harmony realy added to the song. So, I think either it is his moment and she respects that. I mean he does shine on those. I think she hates LB's Come :come: Finally, she has been singing on ISA with a few exceptions since the 70's, when they were much more of a band, so I think that is why she still does.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by David

The answer to me is obvious: it's his current way of infusing some rock & roll attitude into the proceedings. Problem is, when the guy is 55 or 60 years old, is balding in front, has a shock of Art Garfunkel hair in back, & is surrounded onstage by backup players all smiling blankly & a zonked-out middle-aged woman, it looks pretty dorky to me. In the distant past it never looked idiotic because the whole FM band looked like rock stars.

I think thats a pretty valid statement David. If you look back, Stevie was far more ferocious then, John was a "monster", Mick was Animal and Lindsey was Lindsey.

Now, Stevie is older and more cautious, John is still a monster, just more restrained, Mick is not a Keith Moon figure now but I actually thought he pulled off "manic" pretty well on World Turning on the last tour. Lindsey is still Lindsey..

Originally Posted by David

Nah. You're never in better shape at 55 than you are at 35 -- unless you were a hippopotamus at 35.

Depends on your "influences". Outwards appearances are not everything I've found. Metabolic issues, enlarged heart, fatty liver, dopamine imbalances, cerebellum and hippocampus related problems, etc all through "habits". I'm not saying Lindsey was a walking wreck like Elvis but it can take it's toll. Look at Mick now as opposed to then. Hell, look at Ginger Baker, he doesn't look like he will die on his stool these days! Fruit and water beats coke and brandy.

[Gwillaker]

Originally Posted by Sahara

The 'fro was not cool....

The Tango hair, on the other hand, was.

I don't understand Tusk. At all. Sorry.

I'll think of more.

Aw, no way! I used to wish I could have a "fro" like that!

But the tango hair was cool. Dammit, he always has cool hair. Dunno how he does it!

[Chester]

Originally Posted by madformac

She could have sung on it I'm sure. She sings on ISA so whats the difference? Apart from Lindsey's little spotlight stint with Big Love or Go Insane she would be expected to stay onstage really.

She sings on the album version of ISA. She doesn't sing on the album version of Come, so why live? She didn't sing on Not That Funny on Tusk and she didn't live. Both are big Lindsey spotlight kind of songs, and she surely hates them both to no end. I don't see why she would be expected to be on stage when we have never heard her sing any part of it, and it's not like it's a song that translates to the tamborine easily! Plus, it's 10 minutes long!

[Oykamu]

Lindsey lies consistently when he's talking about the state of the band. I think it's something that every person in the band has done and I realize that in promo interviews for an album you aren't going to talk about how much you hate each other, but it's amusing now. There was an interview on YouTube for a while with Stevie and Lindsey about the recording of TItN. He was talking out of his ASS about how "healing" the session had been and how much more together the band felt. There's also the sound clip with him talking about Never Going Back Again and saying how much happier they are now than when they were recording it, but it still makes them miserable when they sing it. Now fifteen, twenty years later he's saying that that was the worst time of his life.

Faults aside, I still love Lindsey.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by madformac

Lindsey has recieved a lot of critical acclaim for both his solo and Mac work. I recall many favorable reviews of Out Of The Cradle back in 1992. Stevie got the majority of commercial success. So each, as David stated, got praise. Just in different forms.

My belief is that Lindsey being a male (and a Libran one too as I speak from experience here) wants his cake and to eat it too. He wants to push boundaries, he wants critical acclaim but he also want commercial success. It's his ego that can't accept he can't have everything. I'm sure Stevie's success in terms of "breaking out" as a solo artist without his help as Strand mentioned only made his feelings worse. The fact is he is well respected in his field and critically successful. It's a shame for him he can't be so commercial but it's never going to happen with the record buying masses stuck in the same arena of always buying the safe, radio friendly albums.

Now just going off subject slightly and going back to the other artists I've mentioned earlier I'm seeing a picture of Lindsey's personality here.

If anybody has listened to David Gilmour's new album "On An Island" they will have noticed a lot of the songs and themes are to do with his domestic bliss, his wife and children. Now, if you listen to Eric Clapton's last album "Back Home" the theme is the same. Both equate Heaven to be the relationship they have with their partners. Both sing about their children and the relationships within the family. Both these guys are in their early 60's. They both have young wives and young children. Both have settled down and after years of living the rock star life are now happy and domesticated. The music is laid back and serene in places. You could even argue the same with Mark Knopfler, again he is in his late 50's with a younger wife and young children too. Although his songs are not about domestic bliss they have a laid back maturity to them. It's almost like they have found peace within themselves, or as Gerald would point out, they have gone boring and mainstream..

So we come to Lindsey. He's into his later 50's, young wife, young kids, so naturally we expect more of the above... But no. His music still has an edge and a manicness which suggests he is yet to settle down. Given his antics on the last tour, grinding, flailing and prancing around onstage and the urgency with some of his newer material it could be argued he is either still in a mid-life crisis and or he still believes he is a young man and refuses to grow up. I think he is to be both applauded and yet criticised for his unique behaviour. He certainly has some demons in there..

Haha. I admit it. I don't want an artist who has inner peace. Knopfler is a bad example in this case. The man is born as inner peace. Yawn. But Lindsey-wise: excellent post buddy. I just don't want him to grow up. I love the fact that he is still eager to get any critical acclaim. I don't believe he is so eager for that big commercial succes. I think the man wants to be a legend. He just is intelligent enough to know that that will be impossible without commercial succes. Justin, I'm so glad you're back at the forum. The threads are getting beef again.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

I was in texas and oklahoma and london in 2003

I wish we could have visited more at the Dallas show Gerald! From our brief interaction you seemed like a really cool guy. My husband really enjoyed talking to you too!

Anyway, I'm glad you fight to the death for your favorite guitar player, I think he's rad and I don't take too kindly to music snobs telling me "he's not the best" and then letting that statement proceed to knock him down a notch on the old musician scale and overshadow his amazing and unique style. I much prefer his playing to Clapton why? Because Clapton bores me to tears, leaves me cold, meh, blah, whatever, blues riff this, blues riff that, it's all formulaic wankering. Lindsey's playing is edgy, fun, manic, crazy, beautiful, heartbreaking, and downright hooky and foot-stomping all on the same record. In short, his playing moves me too, and for that, he is one of MY favorite guitarists. End of story.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I wish we could have visited more at the Dallas show Gerald! From our brief interaction you seemed like a really cool guy. My husband really enjoyed talking to you too! . . . .

Well, I am here to tell you Gerald and I sat and chatted for at least an hour and had a blast!!!!!!!!!!

But, Lord Child - I got overserved

[madformac]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Justin, I'm so glad you're back at the forum. The threads are getting beef again.

Thanks Gez.

I'm just trying to inject a little stimulation to this thread. This "unpopular" thread is funnily enough one of the most popular threads ever on this forum. I think Lindsey would find some odd satisfaction in that statistic. You see Lindsey, unpopular can be popular.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, I am here to tell you Gerald and I sat and chatted for at least an hour and had a blast!!!!!!!!!!

But, Lord Child - I got overserved

I just remember being overwhelmed by all the Ledgies! I felt like I needed to talk to everyone at least a little bit but in the end felt like I didn't talk to anyone for very long at all .

No wonder you were overserved...two bigmouths and some alchohol make for A LOT of conversation You know I kid!

[David]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Anyway, I'm glad you fight to the death for your favorite guitar player, I think he's rad and I don't take too kindly to music snobs telling me "he's not the best" and then letting that statement proceed to knock him down a notch on the old musician scale and overshadow his amazing and unique style.

People will always argue over just how good (or not good) a guitarist he is. Strangely enough, rock critics have always considered his idiosyncrasies signs of quality & worthwhileness.

Also, you can console yourself with the fact that, of all the big guitar players of the modern rock era, Buckingham amassed the greatest acclaim from the critical contingent as a producer & song arranger -- which he himself has always said was his greatest contribution to Fleetwood Mac.

He just may be right.

[David]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Haha. I admit it. I don't want an artist who has inner peace. Knopfler is a bad example in this case. The man is born as inner peace. Yawn. But Lindsey-wise: excellent post buddy. I just don't want him to grow up.

When you read biographical material on Beethoven, you're constantly saying, 'Oh, grow up!' because it feels as if you were dealing with an extremely neurotic petulant child.

[madformac]

Well this is a great thread. Lots of good interaction and no petulance unlike another popular forum here.

If I could use an analogy to sum up what these guys mentioned mean to me then it might make more sense. This is something Chris Rea used to describe himself in the business and I think it works.

Eric Clapton is to me Coca Cola. He's very popular, sells millions and has been a major brand name for decades. I love coke, I can't go for long periods without cracking a can open and enjoying that taste. But Coca Cola is very mainstream and you know that when you buy a can it will taste like all the previous ones you have drunk. But if you like it (and millions do) then you enjoy it. It's a predictable but very enjoyable experience. It can be semi addictive.

David Gilmour to me is like coffee. Most people would argue it tastes better with milk (milk being Roger Waters) but drunk neat it has a strong and rich flavour that tastes very different from a cappucino but not any less pleasant. His earlier solo work, like Lindsey, is experimental and to me considered a double shot of espresso. It's not as popular as cappucino but it's a great experience if you take the plunge.

Lindsey Buckingham is to me like absinthe. Very strong and individual. I don't drink it often but when the mood takes me I have to have a hit of the stuff. It's frowned upon in the mainstream drinks industry but is rarely understood. It's not advised to take in too much in one go but when you do it's like nothing else. Experts will tell you it's a fine drink with a very agreeable flavour but the side effects can be quite extreme. You can take it in the acceptable form with water and sugar (Mac and Nicks) and get away with it without being labelled a nutjob. If you however choose to take it neat it's far more potent and you are likely to get strange looks from the masses.

Mark Knopfler is to me like Hot Chocolate. Rich and smooth, very mellow and not offensive. Great to chill out to and can be used to send you to sleep before bedtime.

Peter Green. Peter is like Jack Daniels to me. My favorite drink. Sometimes you can mix it with coke (Eric) but taken straight it's a full, strong flavour with sends fire to my heart. It's important not to drink too much but to treat it with respect and drink it when the mood and time allows. Although it's great in public, you can sit back at home, pour a JD and immerse yourself in the moment. It chills me out.